Share this story

As part of rocket development, aerospace engineers extensively test booster components before they are assembled into a larger launch vehicle. To that end, NASA has built two big test stands at Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama to test its large liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen fuel tanks. These tanks are part of the core stage of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket.

However, a new report from NASA's inspector general, Paul Martin, raises serious questions about the cost of these test stands and the decision to build them in Alabama rather than in Mississippi, where NASA has an existing facility that already tests rocket engines. Additionally, the Mississippi-based Stennis Space Center is also much closer to the Louisiana factory where the SLS hydrogen and oxygen tanks are being assembled.

Costs

As part of the SLS program, NASA determined that it needed two test stands: one is for the larger hydrogen tank, which is about half the length of a football field, and the second is for the oxygen tank. The agency budgeted $40.5 million for the project but ended up spending $76 million, which is an increase of 88 percent. The stands were completed in November 2016.

Further Reading

The inspector found that most of the cost overruns were due to NASA's acceleration of the test-stand construction, with the space agency requesting the stands' completion by September 2015. This would have allowed the SLS rocket to make its maiden launch by the end of 2017. However, shortly after construction began, NASA delayed the maiden launch of the SLS rocket until 2018. And, recently, the agency delayed it again into 2019.

The initial launch delay came just a few months after construction began. By then, the SLS program, which is based at Marshall in northern Alabama, had already paid a $7.6 million premium to the contractor for a compressed schedule. Moreover, because plans weren't finalized before work began, NASA had to modify the construction plan six times during the course of building the test stands. This added an additional $12.1 million to the cost. Finally, despite the rush job requested, the test stands weren't completed until November 2016.

Location

The SLS program also chose to build the test stands at Marshall without considering the total cost of doing so there, versus other sites. Those costs include planning, design, operations, maintenance, and more. The consideration of different sites is normally a NASA requirement for projects costing in excess of $10 million.

The inspector general's report states:

NASA chose to build... at Marshall without adequately assessing life-cycle costs associated with other possible sites to make the most cost-effective analysis. Although teams from both Marshall and Stennis proposed designs for possible test stands, only the Marshall designs were reviewed and listed as possible alternatives at the final decision review.

Further Reading

The inspector's report suggests that, just as engine tests were moved to Stennis in recent decades, the agency might consider doing the same for structural tests of large fuel tanks. The relocation would be due to neighborhoods being built near the edge of Marshall and the lack of a "buffer zone" between the space center and nearby community.

In response to the inspector general, Marshall engineers said the Stennis design was eliminated because it would have cost more. (This analysis was not documented in 2012 when the decision was made, however). The report also states that Marshall engineers could provide no documentation or analysis to back up claims that building the test stands at Stennis would have led to higher maintenance costs or design issues. "In our view, once the design that best met the SLS Program's needs was chosen, the Agency should have determined the most cost efficient location to build based on analysis of all potential locations," the report says.

NASA’s Barge Water Route from Michoud to Marshall. (Note proximity of Stennis to Michoud).

NASA

Finally, the inspector general's report notes that building the test stands at Stennis made more sense from a geographical standpoint. After the fuel tanks are built at Michoud Assembly Facility in southeastern Louisiana, they must be shipped by barge to the test stands. Stennis is only about 40 miles away, whereas Marshall lies 1,240 miles away and requires navigating the Mississippi, Ohio, and Tennessee rivers. Shipping a single tank from Michoud to Marshall takes about two weeks and $500,000. Sending tanks to Stennis requires less than a week and only $200,000.

The loss of a few tens of millions of federal dollars might not be much of a story but for the fact that critics have assailed NASA's rocket program as a political beast, designed to maximize jobs in the districts of key US senators and representatives. Indeed, among the most vocal of SLS proponents has been US Senator Richard Shelby. The Alabama Republican proclaimed in 2011 that “The ability of NASA to achieve our goals for future space exploration has always been and always will be through Marshall Space Flight Center."

The diagram clearly identifies the true winner, the Mississippi barge association, where barging large objects upriver isn't a resource-intensive waste of time, but an opportunity to tip their throttles to 10 and "roll-coal" upriver at a leisurely walking pace...

Marshall engineers said the Stennis design was eliminated because it would have cost more.

This happens to be true - it would have cost the Marshall site the assured supply of further lucrative work. Remember the stirring spirit from the glorious early days of Apollo: ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your senator can do for you.

Quote: Indeed, among the most vocal of SLS proponents has been US Senator Richard Shelby. The Alabama Republican proclaimed in 2011 that “The ability of NASA to achieve our goals for future space exploration has always been and always will be through Marshall Space Flight Center."

Stennis vs Marshall is obviously ridiculous when looking at it on the map, but why does it take a week and $200k to move something 40 miles?

You still have to pack it all up, get it properly situated on the barges, make sure you have all your environmental impact studies done, etc., then the unpacking and getting situated on the other side. The overhead costs have to be paid regardless of how much farther a distance you move once underway.

Once again proving that "Senate Launch System" is an entirely correct way to expand the SLS acronym...

I can't and won't defend the siting decisions, but I will say that the cost overruns ensuing from the expedited construction schedule and associated redesigns aren't exclusive to government work. Fast-track construction is a universally terrible idea, and its terribleness is demonstrated over and over again in both public and private sector jobs. I'm currently working as a designer on one such job, and while the *idea* is that starting construction on phased design packages will make the job cheaper and faster by compressing the amount of time a property doesn't provide ROI, in practice it's just a way to make the design team miserable, turn every RFI into an emergency, and waste money changing things you don't find out were wrong until after they got built. As such it's usually championed by ownership that has more money than sense, or in this case by agencies spending pork-barrel money to please an elected official who doesn't care how much he's wasting as long as it helps him win re-election.

What's your point? The Senate is wasteful, the managing director is wasteful, the contract work is wasteful, the transportation is wasteful.

The entire project is wasteful no matter where you look.

One group is directing the others via allocation of budget and conditions tied to allocation of budget. "Thou shall get $45M for building a test stand in Marshall, Alabama, and none for building it anywhere else."

Why should anyone being threatened with firings for not following those instructions shoulder any blame?

Stennis vs Marshall is obviously ridiculous when looking at it on the map, but why does it take a week and $200k to move something 40 miles?

Easy answer: it's a Really Big something.

Barges can cheaply transport bulk goods because they build them once and run them unchanged for three decades. But this job requires the correct barges, calculating the stability and wind loading, documenting the safe operating regime, building a cradle and welding it to the deck. Getting experienced riggers and the loading equipment at both ends takes scheduling and money. Then add on overhead, insurance, a buffer for the hassle of dealing with the government, and profit.

NASA's as bad as the Defense Dept. And you cannot blame it all on Congress. The organization is corrupt. We should split JPL off and start a new space agency to replace NASA.

This isn't NASA. NASA never even wanted the SLS program. Congress critters gutted the rules and rewrote the book to force the SLS program down the agency's throat. NASA never wanted the abomination that was the spaceshuttle program either. But same deal. Other entities outside NASA (not to mention the NSA, CIA, etc) shoved the new design and specifications/requirements down NASA's throat.

NASA has simply been spending the last 3+ decades trying to make the best of a shitty situation, while taking all the blame for the same shitty situation over which they had NO CONTROL and NO SAY.

Stennis vs Marshall is obviously ridiculous when looking at it on the map, but why does it take a week and $200k to move something 40 miles?

Moving monstrously large objects is a significantly more complex logistics project than packing the kids into the Family Truckster for school. Such undertakings need to be closely coordinated with the prevailing road-surface authorities, law enforcement agencies, etc. across multiple jurisdictions.

Plus, these beasts will only move so fast, and are rarely, if ever, completed non-stop.

One group is directing the others via allocation of budget and conditions tied to allocation of budget. "Thou shall get $45M for building a test stand in Marshall, Alabama, and none for building it anywhere else."

Why should anyone being threatened with firings for not following those instructions shoulder any blame?

In general, I agree with you. But being complicit with someone else's insanity shouldn't give you a free pass. (Looking at you, Paul Ryan.)

What's your point? The Senate is wasteful, the managing director is wasteful, the contract work is wasteful, the transportation is wasteful.

The entire project is wasteful no matter where you look.

One group is directing the others via allocation of budget and conditions tied to allocation of budget. "Thou shall get $45M for building a test stand in Marshall, Alabama, and none for building it anywhere else."

Why should anyone being threatened with firings for not following those instructions shoulder any blame?

That may not be what happened. If it were, NASA could have pointed to the law and said, "That's why." Earmarks were banned in 2011, and while there are ways to get around the ban, they're harder to do.

The decision may have been one to placate Sen. Shelby and secure his vote in the future. No paper trail would be possible on that because it would kill any project done for that reason.

NASA's as bad as the Defense Dept. And you cannot blame it all on Congress. The organization is corrupt. We should split JPL off and start a new space agency to replace NASA.

This isn't NASA. NASA never even wanted the SLS program. Congress critters gutted the rules and rewrote the book to force the SLS program down the agency's throat. NASA never wanted the abomination that was the spaceshuttle program either. But same deal. Other entities outside NASA (not to mention the NSA, CIA, etc) shoved the new design and specifications/requirements down NASA's throat.

NASA has simply been spending the last 3+ decades trying to make the best of a shitty situation, while taking all the blame for the same shitty situation over which they had NO CONTROL and NO SAY.

NASA absolutely wanted the Space Shuttle and no changes to the specification were ever shoved down the Agency's throat. They went cap in hand to the Air Force to get all their payloads off perfectly good Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets and onto NASA's new toy. When they were told that doing so meant carrying much larger and heavier satellites than the Orbiter was designed for, instead of abandoning the idea, the Agency committed to an enormously expensive and ultimately dangerous redesign.

The entire economic justification for the Shuttle was based on invented financial analysis from NASA that had no basis in reality. When the wheels were coming off the program and the Air Force wanted out, the Agency even attempted to get the President to ban the DoD from restarting work on Titan.

NASA's as bad as the Defense Dept. And you cannot blame it all on Congress. The organization is corrupt. We should split JPL off and start a new space agency to replace NASA.

This isn't NASA. NASA never even wanted the SLS program. Congress critters gutted the rules and rewrote the book to force the SLS program down the agency's throat. NASA never wanted the abomination that was the spaceshuttle program either. But same deal. Other entities outside NASA (not to mention the NSA, CIA, etc) shoved the new design and specifications/requirements down NASA's throat.

NASA has simply been spending the last 3+ decades trying to make the best of a shitty situation, while taking all the blame for the same shitty situation over which they had NO CONTROL and NO SAY.

NASA absolutely wanted the Space Shuttle and no changes to the specification were ever shoved down the Agency's throat. They went cap in hand to the Air Force to get all their payloads off perfectly good Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets and onto NASA's new toy. When they were told that doing so meant carrying much larger and heavier satellites than the Orbiter was designed for, instead of abandoning the idea, the Agency committed to an enormously expensive and ultimately dangerous redesign.

The entire economic justification for the Shuttle was based on invented financial analysis from NASA that had no basis in reality. When the wheels were coming off the program and the Air Force wanted out, the Agency even attempted to get the President to ban the DoD from restarting work on Titan.

Still reading the document but 55 shuttle launches a year!?! someone was delusional

Stennis vs Marshall is obviously ridiculous when looking at it on the map, but why does it take a week and $200k to move something 40 miles?

Port aside, those things are massive and it likely takes a couple of days to get them loaded and unloaded without damage.

That, of course, is multiplied by 50 times when moving 1960 more miles over a substantially longer period of time.

IMHO, it'd be cheaper in the long run to scrap the Alabama stands and build new ones in Mississippi across the bay. They certainly have the time to build them at a more leisurely pace and they have the benefit of not having to change the specs nor push an accelerated schedule.

Better $110 million stands that are close and save millions per move than $75 million stands that are far away and inviting more potential of loss through transportation accidents, not to mention more total costs per move. Whatever member of Congress who extorted NASA into picking that location needs to have their reproductive anatomy removed, and then tossed out of Congress so they can't do more harm.

One group is directing the others via allocation of budget and conditions tied to allocation of budget. "Thou shall get $45M for building a test stand in Marshall, Alabama, and none for building it anywhere else."

Why should anyone being threatened with firings for not following those instructions shoulder any blame?

In general, I agree with you. But being complicit with someone else's insanity shouldn't give you a free pass. (Looking at you, Paul Ryan.)

Complicit implies having a choice in following an insane person. Paul Ryan? Sure he has a choice. NASA? I'd like to hear what their choices are.

NASA's as bad as the Defense Dept. And you cannot blame it all on Congress. The organization is corrupt. We should split JPL off and start a new space agency to replace NASA.

This isn't NASA. NASA never even wanted the SLS program. Congress critters gutted the rules and rewrote the book to force the SLS program down the agency's throat. NASA never wanted the abomination that was the spaceshuttle program either. But same deal. Other entities outside NASA (not to mention the NSA, CIA, etc) shoved the new design and specifications/requirements down NASA's throat.

NASA has simply been spending the last 3+ decades trying to make the best of a shitty situation, while taking all the blame for the same shitty situation over which they had NO CONTROL and NO SAY.

NASA absolutely wanted the Space Shuttle and no changes to the specification were ever shoved down the Agency's throat. They went cap in hand to the Air Force to get all their payloads off perfectly good Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets and onto NASA's new toy. When they were told that doing so meant carrying much larger and heavier satellites than the Orbiter was designed for, instead of abandoning the idea, the Agency committed to an enormously expensive and ultimately dangerous redesign.

The entire economic justification for the Shuttle was based on invented financial analysis from NASA that had no basis in reality. When the wheels were coming off the program and the Air Force wanted out, the Agency even attempted to get the President to ban the DoD from restarting work on Titan.

Still reading the document but 55 shuttle launches a year!?! someone was delusional

Exactly, and unfortunately that someone was NASA management.

The Shuttle was effectively an X-plane since nothing like it had ever flown before. Every one of the Orbiters was different and they were all massively overweight with much lower payload capabilities than they were designed for. Discovery was the most capable but even it carried 10,000 lbs less to orbit than it should have.

You wouldn't expect a brand new type of vehicle to be able to slot straight into the role of a reliable workhorse to carry both satellites and people in safety, but that's what the Shuttle was expected to do. On top of that, the economics of it only began to make sense if it could fly every week at the least. That wasn't possible but NASA administrators told Congress and others that it was in order to secure funding and commitments of support.

The whole program was driven by management delusion, and the concerns of engineers who could have injected a dose of reality were ignored because they were politically inconvenient.

One may ask why NASA can't test the tanks *at the factory they are built in*.

Basic safety - they need to be far enough away from ANYTHING else, so that if something goes catastrophically wrong, the only thing that's lost is the tank and possibly the test stand, not a billion-dollar factory.